measuring and reporting uw’s sustainability performance
DESCRIPTION
Measuring and Reporting UW’s Sustainability Performance. Presentation by: Suzanne Zitzer Project Team Members: Annika Eberle , Lars Madsen, Matt McNair, Negash Zewdie Faculty Advisor: Beth Bryant EM Keystone Sponsor: UW Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Measuring and Reporting UW’s Sustainability
Performance
Presentation by: Suzanne ZitzerProject Team Members: Annika Eberle, Lars Madsen, Matt McNair, Negash Zewdie
Faculty Advisor: Beth BryantEM Keystone Sponsor: UW Environmental Stewardship and Sustainability Office
Thursday May 24, 2012 UW Program on the Environment
How is Campus Sustainability Measured?
Sustainability surveys:– Enable rating and ranking of institutions– Allow for internal progress tracking and external comparison against
peers
UW currently reports to:– Sustainable Endowments Institute– Sierra Club– Princeton Review
Introduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
What is STARS?
Pilot released in 2007 by the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
Based on Brundtland definition “…meet[ing] the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Project Approach and Goals
Overall goal: Evaluate the feasibility of adopting STARS
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Data Acquisition
RecommendationEvaluation
Criteria
Audit
Peer School
Interviews
LiteratureReview
How does the UW currently perform?
Survey Sponsor 2008 2009 2010 2011
Sustainable Endowments Institute (SEI) A- A- A- A-
Sierra Club (SC) 9th 2nd 4th 1st
Princeton Review (PR) 99 99 96 99
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Why are we interested in STARS?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Environment Environment Environment Environment
Economy Economy Economy
Equity
SEI SC PR STARS
Why are we interested in STARS?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
SEI SC PR STARS Brundtland
University of Washington
Arizona State University
University of California, Berkeley
University of California, Davis
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Colorado, Boulder
How does STARS scoring work?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments Conclusion
STARS Sections Points1 Education and Research 100
2 Operations 100
3 Planning, Administration and Engagement 100
4 Innovation 4
Introduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Rating Min. Score RequiredBronze 25Silver 45
Gold 65
Platinum 85
How well do other schools score using STARS?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
From http://www.stars.aashe.org
How was the audit conducted?
1. Data requirements were determined for all 135 STARS credits
2. UW data content owners were identified by ESS Office
3. Data requests were sent to these individuals » More than thirty individuals were contacted
4. Once obtained, data was input into STARS Reporting Tool
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
0
20
40
60
80
100
University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
How does UW perform using STARS?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments Conclusion
How would improvements affect UW score?
Introduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
0
20
40
60
80
100
University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
University of Washington (after proposed changes)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
How did we create our recommendation?
Evaluation criteria categories– Transparency– Accuracy– Repeatability– Accountability– Popularity – Sustainability definition robustness– Ease of participation – UW performance– Survey cost to UW
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
How does STARS compare to other surveys?
Introduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation Criteria STARS Audit Recent
Developments Conclusion
Evaluation Criteria STARS PR SEI SC
1. Transparency 3 2 2 32. Accuracy 3 1 2 23. Repeatability 2 1 1 14. Accountability 2 2 3 25. Popularity 2 3 2 26. Robustness of sustainability definition 3 1 2 27. Ease of participation 3 2 2 28. UW performance 2 3 3 39. Survey cost to UW 1 2 2 2
Total points 21 17 19 19
Introduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Survey Evaluation and STARS Audit
• STARS is the most valuable survey
• All surveys have value
• The UW is capable of excelling at STARS
RecommendationAdopt STARS and report to all four surveys
STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation
Criteria STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation
Criteria STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation
Criteria STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation
Criteria STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review Evaluation
Criteria STARS Audit Recent Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation
CriteriaRecent
Developments ConclusionIntroduction Survey Review STARS Audit Evaluation Criteria
Recent Developments Conclusion
Assessment
Acknowledgments
ESS Office Claudia Frere Aubrey Batchelor Jennifer Perkins
Faculty Advisor Beth Bryant
Survey Contacts David Soto Jillian Buckholz Mark Orlowski
Audit Contacts Alex CredgingtonAnn SarnaBethany StaelensBrian DavisClara SimonClaudia Christensen
Audit Contacts (cont.) Helen MacQueenHoward NakaseJennifer PetritzJim AngelosanteJosh KavanaghKatie StultzLuis FragaMegan KogutMichelle HallMike MeyeringJodene DavisRandy WestStephanie HarringtonSusan TempletonTeresa SeyfriedDave FieldsErin RiceGary BangsGuarrin Sakagawa
Peer School Contacts Allen DoyleCamille KirkCindy SheaDave Weil David WoodruffEvan LewisJack ByrneJulie HampelKaren LelandKristin HansenLisa McNeillyMoe TabriziNan Jenks-JaySteve Mital
Questions
Survey Participation Trends
Table 23: UW score on Tier One STARS credits in Education and Research
Maximum possible points; small policy change or moderate investment; credit has other issues; score is difficult to change
Credit Number Credit Title Maximum Points Available UW Score
Co-Curricular Education
ER 1 Student Sustainability Educators Program 5 0
ER 2 Student Sustainability Outreach Campaign 5 5
ER 3 Sustainability in New Student Orientation* 2 2
ER 4 Sustainability Materials and Publications 4 4
Curriculum ER 5 Sustainability Course Identification 3 1
ER 6 Sustainability-Focused Courses 10 3.91
ER 7 Sustainability-Related Courses 10 0
ER 8 Sustainability Courses by Department* 7 2.45
ER 9 Sustainability Learning Outcomes* 10 7.22
ER 10 Undergraduate Program in Sustainability* 4 4
ER 11 Graduate Program in Sustainability* 4 4
ER 12 Sustainability Immersive Experience* 2 2
ER 13 Sustainability Literacy Assessment 2 0
ER 14 Incentives for Developing Sustainability Courses 3 3
Research ER 15 Sustainability Research Identification* 3 1
ER 16 Faculty Involved in Sustainability Research* 10 2.31
ER 17 Departments Involved in Sustainability Research* 6 2.68
ER 18 Sustainability Research Incentives* 6 6
ER 19 Interdisciplinary Research in Tenure and Promotion* 2 2
Examples of Sustainable Compensation Definitions
CU Boulder - Sustainable Compensation
• It is the policy of the state to provide prevailing total compensation to employees in the state personnel system to ensure the recruitment, motivation, and retention of a qualified and competent work force. Total compensation includes, but is not limited to, salary, group benefit plans, retirement benefits, performance awards, incentives, premium pay practices, and leave. The reference to “prevailing” reflects the State’s desire to not only enable employees to meet their basic needs but to provide total compensation that is competitive with its defined labor market; specifically, to compensate at a level that falls in the middle of market (even beyond basic rather than to lead or lag the market. To achieve this, an annual compensation survey is conducted in an effort to maintain an integrated and prevailing compensation package.
CU-Boulder has reviewed the hourly wages for classified staff titles on our campus and determined that 100% of the positions, with a margin of error of +/- 1%, earn greater than $8.29 per hour which has been ascertained as the living wage for Colorado*. We have determined that this, in conjunction with group benefit plans, retirement benefits, performance awards, incentives, premium pay practices, bus pass, and leave benefits enables employees to meet their basic needs.
• *http://www.livingwage.geog.psu.edu/states/08
UC San Diego - Sustainable Compensation
Wages for the lowest paid workers are negotiated through the collective bargaining process.
Arizona State University - Sustainable Compensation
• Arizona State University has established a minimum wage rate that exceeds the state and federal minimum wage for entry level (non-student) employees. Annually, the market relationship of wages for employees is reviewed with recommendations prepared to address changes to local economic conditions. The University has adopted the position to target wages of employees at the market average as appropriate.
• Additionally, the University contributes roughly 75% to the overall cost of employee health and welfare benefits to offset the cost to the staff. As employees of the University, staff and members of their family are eligible to enroll in degree programs at a 75% reduction of tuition cost or enroll in individual non-degree classes of their interest for a very nominal fee.
• The University has also established a Values Based Standard for Business Relationships with University Service Providers which states that the institution will seek business relationships with companies who provide a compensation system that is sensitive to a competitive marketplace while enabling employees to meet basic needs, and provide employees opportunities to improve skills in order to raise social and economic well being.
Details about STARS Audit
STARS Audit: Operations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
STARS Audit: Operations
Buildings
Climate
Dining Serv
ices
Energ
y
Grounds
Purchasi
ng
Transporta
tionWast
eWate
r0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
University of WashingtonPeer school averageMaximum points available
STAR
S Sc
ore
(cat
egor
y pt
s.)
STARS: Operations
Proposed actions to improve Operations score:– Buildings
• Gather data for newly constructed LEED certified buildings (1 – 2 points)• Implement specified operation and maintenance policies for all buildings (7 points)• Create and implement indoor air quality plan (2 points)
– Energy• Implement electricity metering in each building (1 – 2 points)
– Waste• Gather data on new construction waste diversion (0.5 – 0.8 points)
– Purchasing• Gather data on Silver and Gold certified computer purchasing (0.5 – 1 points)
Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 4-5%
STARS Audit: Operations
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
University of Washington (after proposed changes)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
STARS Audit: Planning, Administration, and Engagement (PAE)
0102030405060708090
100University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
STARS Audit: PAE
Coordination an
d Planning
Diveris
ty an
d Affordabilit
y
Human Reso
urces
Investm
ent
Public En
gage
ment
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
University of WashingtonPeer school averageMaximum points availableST
ARS
Scor
e (c
ateg
ory
pts.
)
STARS Audit: PAE
Proposed actions to improve PAE score:– Human Resources
• Create definition of sustainable compensation and assess the number of employees covered (4 – 8 points)
• Create a hand-out about sustainability for new employees (2 points)• Create a sustainability educators program reaching 50 % of staff (2.5 points)
– Coordination and Planning • Create sustainability plan for the UW including measurable goals (3 points)
Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 3-5%
STARS Audit: PAE
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
University of Washington (after proposed changes)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
STARS Audit: Education and Research
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)
STARS Audit: Education and Research
Co-Curricular Education
Curriculum Research0
10
20
30
40
50
60
University of WashingtonPeer school averageMaximum points available
STAR
S Sc
ore
(cat
egor
y pt
s.)
Proposed actions to improve score: – Education
• Develop sustainability definition for courses (1 point)• Perform inventory of sustainability courses (2 – 4 points)
– Research• Develop sustainability definition for research (1 point)• Identify sustainability research on campus (1 – 3 points)
– Co-curricular education• Create sustainability educators program (2 – 4 points)• Perform sustainability literacy assessment and follow-up (2 points)
Demonstrates ability to increase STARS score by 3-5%
STARS Audit: Education and Research
STARS Audit: Education and Research
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100University of Colorado, Boulder
Arizona State University
Middlebury College
University of California, San Diego
University of Oregon
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
University of Washington (currently)
University of Washington (after proposed changes)
STAR
S Sc
ore
(%)